Forum:EU template confusion
''~Thank you, guys, for putting all of this stuff on my talk page. It's been fun getting those cool little orange boxes all the time.~' However, it would be better over here. ;-) 14:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ---- I am afraid the template looks like a field chaotically filled with flags and names. Their order is not obvious, and when the font is large Some names get split from the flags. Not to mention that presence of Kosovo, and the names of Macedonia and Ireland makes it offensive. — Hellerick 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::It looks quite nice over here actually, but if many people have that problem I guess it'll have to be amended. On Kosovo; I have raised the issue before if I recall correctly and to me the problem is not so much the fact that Kosovo is present but that Transnistria is missing. When objectively looking at the rules international customary law sets to statehood (I'm referring to the Montevideo convention) one would see that both of them qualify to be called states, and for that reason should be included in the template (which also applies to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the way). I have no objections against using the names "Ireland" and "Macedonia" for the countries commonly known by these names. In Macedonia's case calling it "FYROM" or "Republic of Macedonia" is also bound to be at least equally offensive to some; so I think that using the short form mostly used would be most convenient here. --Karsten vK (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) I see the above, which looks fine to me. Macedonia is what 99% of people know it as and putting FYROM would mean nothing - unless you live in Macedonia. Ireland is also what most people know it as. With Kosovo I don't know. I don't think you would object to using Brazil's name, even though Brazilians call it "Brasil". In fact, most countries are called something different to the residents of the country to what they are known by people outside, e.g. Germany, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, Brazil, and Ireland to name but a few. We can't try to include all of these. However, if it is a big problem, one suggestion would be to put "Macedonia/FYROM" and "Ireland/Eire" instead. 10:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC) First of all I don't care whether you have objections, it is not about you or me, it's about millions of other people who are never going to visit this site, and yet their opinion should be respected. Of course it is not possible to not offend everyone, some people would be outraged to see China and Israel, but it does not mean that we should not even try. I don't think it would not be that difficult to use italics for entities like Kosovo (with an appropriate note bellow), and adding words like "Republic of" and "FYRO" — it does not create any troubles and saves the nerve cells. On the other hand I think it would make sense to include non-sovereign entities like the Faroes Islands and Gibraltar. And if you like table-like templates, you should arrange them in columns, not rows — with every column being alphabetically ordered — Hellerick 11:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) BTW, what are the boundaries of Europe? The nations of the Caucasus would like to be included too, you know — Hellerick 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Umm... the boundaries of Europe are very complicated, I should think that we should use Wikipedia's template; you can see it here. This template uses "Macedonia", "Kosovo" and "Ireland". Also, if you are going to have "Republic of Macedonia", then do you propose to put Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Principality of Liechtenstein, State of the Vatican City, Swiss Confederation, and even Most Serene Republic of San Marino? I don't think we want this, and it would mess up the template. 13:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC) And here it has Kosovo within "Dependencies, autonomies, other territories" section. Not to mention that it has Kazakhstan as well. And no, I don't mean to use words like "Republic" everywhere, but only when clarifying is necessary. Like "FYRO Macedonia" (to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia, but alphabetically arranged as "Macedonia") and "Republic of Ireland" (to make it obvious that the Northern Ireland should be searched in another entry). — Hellerick 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Having now researched Macedonia I think that putting "Republic of Macedonia" would be OK, but I think that a for the actual page would be good. However, Kosovo should be Kosovo, or you can put (partially recognised) or some such. I think in Ireland's case it should be "Ireland", with maybe the four nations of the UK in small under the UK? (England, Wales, Scotland and Northen Ireland. I would defintely keep Ireland as Ireland and Kosovo as Kosovo though. 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::Seriously, if any name for Macedonia is insulting for the Macedonians it's this FYROM name. The fact that some people in Greece might be outraged to see the country named by the name it actually uses itself seems less relevant to me than the fact that the country is known as Macedonia locally. Calling the country "Republic of Macedonia" won't take away their annoyance and FYROM is about as humiliating a name as one can imaging; I'd just go for "Macedonia", I can live with "Republic of Macedonia" but "FYROM" is a definite no (and by the way: Could you please just respond to my arguments and not to my way of phrasing them; the latter being absolutely irrelevant). ::The Caucasus nations are by my definition part of Europe and I had inserted them previously. Italics as a solution for partially or non-recognised states seems like a fine solution to me. --Karsten vK (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :::I guess it is not necessary to include entities like England and Scotland, because they are perfectly covered with the term "The United Kingdom". But Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man are quite different story. Obviously they are part of Europe, but they are not represented in the template. :::I never said anything about "FYROM", I propose "FYRO Macedonia", or even "Macedonia, FYRO". Is it insulting? For some people it is I guess, but that's their UN-accepted name after all. I must confess that it's kind of personal matter for me. I had pleasure to talk to some guys from FYROMia, and they sincerely claimed that it was they who conquered Greece, Egypt, Persia, and India; and that their language is one of three featured on the Rosetta stone. That's why I wholeheartedly support Greece in the issue. Calling that country "Macedonia" means to support madness. :::About italics: obviously it is not possible to create a simple list of the European nations without providing some notes about their status. The problem is I know a guy who would flagFreak out about it. — Hellerick 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::::I'd personally have to agree with you that if I'd have been in charge I'd probably called the country Vardar or something, and that "Macedonia" doesn't historically make any sense. I however also think that it is highly insulting to deny a country the right to decide on its own name and pass that right on to the country that happens to be its southern neighbour; supporting madness? Perhaps, but if madness is in charge in Macedonia vexillologists are not the ones to judge them for it and whether we agree with it or not we should just accept it. If we are going to take a political stance we're definitely on a slippery slope. ::::When I was reading works of several Greek scholars for my paper on Cyprus I came across enough ultra-nationalist madness there as well (admittedly, the same applied to Turkish authors). I'm more tempted to call these nationalist and irredentist tendencies a general problem of the Balkans, not an exclusively Macedonian problem, and for that reason don't think Macedonia should be exclusively blamed for it. ::::Having England and such separated on the list wouldn't carry my support; especially considering the fact that the UK is not even a federation. But even if it would have been I still think that federal countries should be treated the way they judicially are: one country. ::::On the entities that were previously known as "colonies" and now go by lots of fancy names; I'd agree with those being added to the template, albeit separated from the actual independent countries. --Karsten vK (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC) So what's the consensus of all this? I think I list it here: *to leave Ireland alone *to add some sort of footnote for Kosovo *and to a) put Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia" or b) leave it as it is. We have to decide which one for Macedonia. 08:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :Everyone, I propose that we leave everything the way it is, except we should include Kosovo as a region of Albania. 15:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ::Albania?!! Why not to list it as a US state? ::And we're sorry for littering your email box; we should have moved the discussion sooner, Mr. FlagFr... uh, you really have to change your screen name. — Hellerick 15:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Here is my proposal: User:Hellerick/EUnations — not perfect, I know. It's very difficult to make the template look okay both in Firefox and IE, and who knows how dozens of other browsers would perceive it? — Hellerick 18:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC) The last thing I want is VexiWiki to be a copy of Wikipedia. Things should be--and are going to be--simple. Sorry about the Kosovo thing; it's really a part of Serbia, not Albania. My bad. But whatever it is, it isn't really its own nation yet. 18:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC) What does everybody think of the above? I prefer this to the current EU template. The bit in small and brackets after Kosovo is optional and could be deleted. And the name of Macedonia could be changed if wanted :). 20:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ::Kosovo definitely is an independent nation, the Montevideo convention is quite clear on this: ::Listing it solely as part of Serbia would be untruthful and biased. Article 3 also makes that Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Taiwan and Somaliland that also live up to article 1 are independent states (obviously not all of them European). The policy we seemed to have thus far was to solely list those nations that are favoured by western media and administrations (Kosovo and Taiwan) and ignore those that aren't, needless to say that such a policy is also overtly biased. If the European entities I listed were added to this template (with footnoted stating they are not universally recognised) this template would get my full support. Seeing the fact that adding non-sovereign territories makes the template colossal I suppose those could be given a template of their own for practical reasons. Listing whether a nations is a member of the EU doesn't seem at al relevant to me for the purpose of this template, so I wouldn't favour that. -- Karsten vK (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :::First of all it is not up to you to decide whether countries are independent or not. Second, Montevideo convention requires an independent nation to have control over its territory, which the Albanian-Kosovar administration has not — it does not control the Serbian enclaves, they still consider themselves part of Serbia, they participate in Serbian elections etc. De facto, Kosovo is still an international protectorate, because the only force that controls all Kosovo is KFOR. In fact I doubt whether we can call " " flag of Kosovo. It is not flag of Kosovo, it is flag of the part of Kosovo controlled by Albanian administration -- even though it's most of Kosovo, it is not equivalent to Kosovo. Kosovo has no flag. — Hellerick 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) What do you think of the actual template, Hellerick? Disregarding Kosovo and Macedonia, of course :) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ::Firstly let me say that I find it quite awkward that you stated that its not up to me to decide whether a country is independent or not and then take the liberty to do just that. Secondly I did not "decide" whether Kosovo is a country or not but just voiced my opinion on the matter, something I AM entitled to do. Thirdly, though controlling a defined territory is indeed one of the requirements, controlling all claimed territory is not. Most countries on this list have some form of territorial dispute with at least one of their neighbours and would by your logic magically stop being stated because of that, seems that employing that strategy would seriously clean up this list... Whether Kosovo is truly independent from foreign powers is about as much dubious as it is irrelevant, puppet states are just as much states as all other states. -- Karsten vK (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :::The point is that currently there are two Kosovos — Albanian and Serbian. And the "flag of Kosovo" represents only one of them — Hellerick 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Point taken; there are two Kosovos. However, since only one of them makes claim to statehood or even regional autonomy it should be quite obvious which Kosovo is meant in a template called "Countries of Europe". The fact that there are two Kosovos obviously does deserve mentioning in the article itself. Since to my knowledge Serbian Kosovo never adopted a flag of its own (correct me if I'm wrong on this) there shouldn't be any disambiguation problems with the name; as long as its completely clear from the article which one is meant. -- Karsten vK (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC) And generally, I'm afraid we can't design a template good enough — small, correct, and informative in the same time. I think it's better to return to text-only template. A gallery of European flags should be a matter of a separate article, not a template. — Hellerick 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) ::My support for that, a smaller template would also make dual listing of countries easier. Having two templates the size of a small article at the bottom of e.g. the Georgia article would just look atrocious. -- Karsten vK (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)